We got a little tease of the Digital Bolex D16 RAW camera earlier in the week, and some were quite concerned with the small amount of footage being released (though they were very clear that more was coming later in the week). That later in the week is here, and the team over at Digital Bolex is now releasing a massive amount of footage for you to play around with (around 10GB worth). Click through to watch the streaming samples first, and some behind the scenes.

I am noticing some extra motion blur in these shots, but without knowing the original shutter angle it's tough to know why that is. I have to imagine the shutter was more open for these shots than you might normally use with this camera. Otherwise, there is an absolutely gorgeous quality about the images, something that's hard to put your finger on (though it could partially be related to the camera's global shutter). Granted, in RAW you can do almost anything you like with the images, but not all sensors are created equal, as the color filter array (CFA) that actually gives you color images with digital sensors can vary quite a bit manufacturer to manufacturer. The Kodak global shutter CCD sensor in this camera is very similar to the one used in the Ikonoskop, so it's no wonder you can do a lot with this footage.

They also shot a bit of behind the scenes:

If you read the post over on their website, they said there are still some bugs to work out in the firmware before the camera is ready. They are making sure that the camera is not a beta release in any way, which hasn't always been the case with certain camera makers over the last few years.

Your Comment

Comment *

Leave this field blank

125 Comments

It's a nice raw image. But I'm betting that the bmpcc image is nearly the same, is s16, and a heckuva lot cheaper. I'm not sure who the market is for this camera any longer. You have to move fast if you are in the digital cinema game now.

What I'd like to see in test footage is a shot from a helicopter. See how that goes compared to a CMOS camera. That will be the decision maker for some if they're going to be shooting in a shaky vehicle like that.

There's something so refreshing about this whole thing. It seems that Joe and company have all but left the fast track world of bleeding-edge-technology-driving-sales and chose to create within this medium something they love. I'm digging it. It makes me feel like using this product will make my life better. I don't know if that's actually true, but all the same... I appreciate this.

I'm certain people watching Transformers, The Hobbit, and all other big digital movies are not saying to themselves as they watch the fantastic picture and special effects, "You know, this could look more 'filmic'".

If a camera works for a person, if they like the camera, if they understand all the settings it has, if they have an eye for where to place the camera, if they have an interesting script, all those things, then things can work well, they can make a good living with it. It doesn't have to be the most filmic, most expensive, biggest name.

I liked the story, the camera angles, it was interesting. I don't know what camera they used, if it was an ARRI, a Red, a 5D3, an AF/AG100, a GH3, whatever, I didn't know. And I don't care. It didn't matter to me as I watched.

That's the higher smoother framerates employed these days in films. and Televisions today have TrueMotion or something, which fills frames between frames for smoother motion. Akin to The Hobbits 48fps, everything looked false, but at 24 it looked like a film, it adds a layer between the audience and the subject :)

Yes. It's a CCD. there is no jello. CMOS cameras all suffer from some form of jello, even the high end cameras (won't name names) produce it just on a lesser scale via faster scans but it still exists, the images on CMOS are qualitatively different as motion looks more plastic imo. this has everything to do with vertical scan. higher end cams do it quicker, but it's a fundamental problem that they ignore because of the economics in manufacturing favor CMOS and it's easier to dump 4k (albeit with an inferior image). most digital camera manufacturers don't make films and have never been in the film biz. i would advise not getting too involved in numbers. in the end, overall image quality trumps "digital dynamic range" and resolution. (remember the megapixel thing years ago). and the iphone shoots 1080p like the alexa.

What's the prove? Quite a damn bit! So far there has been no footage showing how well the camera works under quick camera movements ,multiple objects moving within the frame or anything that can cause jello. You may not care about wobbly footage but I and many others do and want to actually SEE that it' s been eradicated.

Again. The D16 uses a CCD. It has a global shutter. Global shutters don't jello. Period. There is nothing to test or prove about that. It's an engineering fact.

Most CMOS sensors have a rolling shutter that will cause jello. The better ones like you find in an Alexa or Red have a rolling shutter with an extremely fast readout, so jello will only show up in the most extreme cases, like a wip pan. But you will not be able to see it in the wip pan, because of the nature of the wip pan.

Some CMOS sensors have a global shutter, so jello is not a problem, but these are far and few in between (See SonyF55).

i disagree with ben. we are now in the aesthetics game, and not about digital resolution and image sharpness. there are a wide dimension of digital tools available and the artist will select what he deems is appropriate to the projecct. newer is no longer better.

I love that artists have amazing tools now. However, we still have to consider budgets. For $3k+, you can get a Bolex with no lenses or a BMPCC with a garbage bag full of lenses. Cost is part of the equation for many.

But it won't get you 2.5k, it won't get rid of jello shutter, it won't get you XLR inputs, it won't get you weather sealing, it won't get you the batter life, and frankly the myriad of other features that the D16 gets you. Do you even understand film making?

Also for fuck's sake, Black Magic and Digital Bolex are not at war! The D16 will have an extremely small market share and it's written into their business model! I don't understand why people always assume that one company has to win, and one has to lose. These are both excellent choices for film makers and we should be thrilled they exist. Why not be supportive instead of a troll?

I liked it overall, but it looks like it was shot at 1/25th shutter speed. I honestly hate that, completely against the filmic look, and kinda masks how good or bad the motion rendering of the camera is (although there isn't much movement in these shots). Also there's some ghosting it seems.
It'd be nice to see more footage with the shutter set at 180º.

Not sure if it's been mentioned here yet but according to the comments on their website, their shutter angle was locked by the camera due to the firmware still being in development. This was not their choice of angle.

Yes. Luke mentioned it later in another comment and I read it last night. I guess it's great that the developers are showing progress and turning this inot a real camera. But it'd be nice if they showed a real final image because unfinished work tends to give the wrong impression about the actual capabilities of the camera.
Again, it's nice to see progress as well.

Much more interesting. It's still not 100% of what I would expect, but it does seem like they're posting a lot of images as they progress, which might not make a great first impression but does make some sense for a crowd-sourced project.

Currently the dropbox account with the footage is saying they're getting too much traffic, but I'll try again tomorrow.

With all of the rigging and peripherals you need to get a camera up and running, they all end up about the same. Unless you just get the camera, in which case I look forward to seeing your footage that looks like you set the camera in a running dryer.

I am perplexed at the subject of their short. Canon hired Vince Laforet and Shane Hurlbut. Panasonic Philip Bloom. BMD picked a local hero John Brawley. Red another Aussie in Mark Toia. Surely, there are well known cinematographers in Canada who were willing to give this prototype a decent whirl. Grading or not, this just looks dull.
.
PS. A month from now (September, 13-17), the International Broadcasting Convention (which is basically the international version of the NAB) will take place in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Allegedly, Cannon will have the 4K gear up the wazoo. They reserved over 4,000 sq ft of floor space to show their wares. For $3K, I suspect, one will be able to purchase a quality piece.

I still think the Red Dragon 6K has changed everything. There's no more sitting on the fence saying "To K or not to K". All video is heading toward higher K's. And I really don't have a problem with that. I think high K digital edited well looks far better than p's and film.

Maybe for a bit, but at some point it's going to be like it is with film. You just don't always want to shoot everything super 35, some stuff would be great on S16. Probably 98% of projects would do fine with 2.5k, considering how far 4k tvs are off as a realistic choice. Even with a 4k tv 2k-2.5k projects will look great. The walking dead gets made every year on 16mm film, even though 35mm, 4k, 6k, whatever else is available. The filmmakers made a choice, and the right choice, for the needs of their project. Resolution only prettys up an enlargement. Format size does far more to influence the look of your image. A 1080p clip on my tv will look pretty much the same as a 4k clip on my tv, assuming the same sensor size, and capture quality. An IMAX shot though, you can see the greater dimensionality in the image.

Yes, it's true that technology has its peaks and valleys ... but, at the moment, it's climbing uphill at top speed. Once it's at 4K, it may pause for a while and improve only incrementally for the next decade. Right now, however, the pixel counts and video engines rule. A decent 1080p camera is under $1K. 2.5K seems to aim at under $2K. And where does it leave Bolex? Probably in the same place as Ikonoskop.

What if it does show up in the next GH and it still is priced at around $1300.00 for the body, can do color grading, and has all those modes like Vibrant, Vivid, Natural, etc. like the GH3 has? Would 4K for $4K look as good?

Joe's decision is to only post test footage he feels that anybody could shoot, so that people understand that what they're seeing on screen wasn't created with crazy rigs, dollies, vehicles, props, or anything else that you need to be a big name or have a huge budget to have access to; he simply wants people to focus on the strength of the footage itself.

Joe's decision is to only post test footage he feels that anybody could shoot, so that people understand that what they're seeing on screen wasn't created with crazy rigs, dollies, vehicles, props, or anything else that you need to be a big name or have a huge budget to have access to; he simply wants people to focus on the strength of the footage itself, no frills. He believes very strongly in this decision, and has been the only one to use the camera so far because of that. I have not even shot on it myself yet. I'm very excited to do so based on what I've seen so far.

Pardon? How are sliders, somewhat of a quality tripod, or better subject material, using a modicum of editing skill, indicative of real world use? Elle, I'm glad you're taking a step out of the world of vaporware, or at least in that direction. But none of this footage was in anyway endearing, exciting, or what it really should have been...impressive. All of the footage looked either under exposed and murky. Especially given the costs of systems like the BMPCC and BMCC I just don't know. It's a hell of a feat to get this thing from idea, to reality, but where this fits into the landscape of cameras out there boggles my mind a bit.

Exactly what Walter echoed below. Presenting the Digital Bolex, which was founded on crowdsourcing (something I'm opposed to on grounds of how most kickstarters fail, or dick around with their money, or never get to market...sound familiar?) at least should come with a MODICUM of respect towards presenting an idolized version of what you could do with the camera. While the vast marjority of footage I deal with on a daily basis, as an operator, or doing post, from an Alexa is fairly unimpressive, I still know that camera is capable of shooting Skyfall-esque work. ARRI nor RED put mediocre work in their NAB reels, they put stellar work to serve as the brass ring for cinematographers to reach for. So when I hear someone say, "we passed on using crazy rigs, lights, etc" that really translates to "we didn't really give a shit or bother trying."

If you've essentially gambled with OTHER PEOPLE'S money then at least hire a quality DP to throw the hammer down and say, "look this is a work in progress, but LOOK AT HOW AWESOME AN IMAGE we're getting out of this bad boy!" Instead I don't think investors want to be rewarded for their patience with "meh" work.

Also since you made this point earlier, quite a few of the people who comment are working professionals, meaning back before everyone and their mom called themselves DPs because they bought a DSLR with a movie-mode. I admire the balls it takes to get this to market, hell I was skeptical of the RED ONE ever making it out, and I was thankfully rewarded with being able to shoot a feature on the ONE, 5 years ago. All companies can't be like ARRI, SONY, or Panasonic, and develop cameras and expect that the market will come money in hand. So it would behove DB to put their best work forward.

I can't reply to your last post for some reason, so I'm replying here.

I'm not saying I disagree with you; I like splashiness too. I like being impressed. But a choice was made to do something a little different than what other companies are doing, and I would hope that people can respect that decision. Partially this decision was made because of budget--we have none--partially it's because we want to get footage up as fast as possible and there are certain things that are easier and faster to shoot, partially because of Joe's personal preference (and he's the boss), and partially because it's easy to make something slick if you need to trick people into hyping your product, and we don't really feel like doing that. We're just showing what it is. This isn't to say this this clip is our promo reel, or that we would show this footage at a conference like NAB; there will be better projects, professional projects, polished projects. If we waited to shoot, edit color correct, sound edit, score the western we're planning, we'd be another 6 weeks out with no footage shown. Joe was a DP for ten years. He doesn't have a name online because he was never part of the DSLR revolution, but because his style is more lo-fi, that's his choice as an artist. When I shoot on the camera, I will make the choice that works for me, as will all of our backers. Don't sweat this. It's just test footage! And everyone who actually paid for a camera has been pleased so far.

Over a hundred responses at NFS, that's Red and blackmagic territory. You don't need to explain yourself to an anal retintive crowed who thinks they know everything in their elite mind because they work with expensive gear. You guys are doing great, keep it up. Don't let these people (some) rattle you any longer, it's ridicules. Show me an Emmy or an Oscar or even a successful project with their name at the top then they can open their mouths. Regardless of the image and I think it looks pretty good so far, you guys have checked all the boxes and I don't see any other manufacturer offering what you guys are offering so tell them to sit down and keep quiet. Trust me it won't hurt your sales, nobody pays attention to self absorbed know it alls.

I see where Joe is coming from, but to be honest that approach may be a little too idealistic, when competing in the actual market.

Bolex really needs to get a top tier DoP to shoot some demo material. I'm going to be very blunt here and I mean this in the kindest way. While you are an attractive young lady, the footage that we have seen so far has not exactly been aesthetically pleasing. The lighting is poor and the settings have been pretty ugly. The first stills featured a run down conference room, lit with overhead fluorescents and now we have this artists loft, which is also pretty drab and gray. Again, the lighting was flat and reminded me of TV. I'm sorry, but this is not presenting your camera in the best of light.

One of the main reasons why a lot of people are drawn to the Ikonoskop A-CAM is the incredibly impressive footage produced by that camera that is seen on VIMEO. Granted Ikonoskop is in trouble, but those problems have nothing to do with the quality of the imagery.

I admire Joe's idealism, but he's truly headed down the wrong road on this one. The ugly truth is that 90% of the people who ultimately buy a D16 will produce mediocre images. And mediocre doesn't sell cameras. Instead you want to inspire people to strive for a higher goal. When I look at Skyfall and Roger Deakin's work, it makes me want to run out and buy an Alexa. I look at the murky D16 footage and go "meh...".

FWIW, Aaton made a short called "Lucy from Paris" to show their quality - and for a product that is unlikely to see the light of day - and, while no Room8, it at least looks good.
.http://vimeo.com/67811891

The footage looks pretty nice. I have enjoyed watching the proliferation of affordable filmmaking tools. This camera looks pretty great.

However, I was over at digitalbolex.com reading their posts from the shoot. They had to send their camera (which apparently isn't the most recent version) back to the engineers because of needed updates and a "huge firmware bug", plus this camera had no working audio, and the "CF section" didn't work. It sounds like shipping cameras are a long ways away.

I just hope it isn't a shell game, and these cameras really ship/exist.

This camera may be much better for documentary shooting than BMDs cameras. No rolling shutter, decent weight (unlike the pocket camera which will need a lot in the way of stabilising/rig). I am right in thinking there's no way to view with an eye piece/viewer, though? Shooting run and gun I would like to have an eye viewer for stabilisation.

I'm still of the opinion that this will never sell in big numbers, they will not be a serious contender to any of the other big camera makers. This is a camera for a very niche audience. The test footage elicits in me no emotion. It's okay. And of course the BMCC lovers will jump on this saying the BMCC is only 2000 USD and blah blah blah even though it's quite hard to compare them.

Pretty sure this was never meant to sell in big numbers. It'll hold its own little niche, and in that particular niche I think it'll be quite successful. It'll fit pretty well in the indie art scene, probably not so much in major productions.

I think that D16 owners will like what they have (soon). A good camera to shoot moving pictures. With its very own image qualities. No rolling shutter and a texture that is kind of analog (since the CCD sensor is an analog device). Some musicians uses analog instruments like Moog synthesizers and tube amps to get the sound they like - and listeners like what they hear, because it sounds "natural" and "warm". I would like to see how far CCDs can go - bigger pixels, larger formats, higher frame rates. ... more bits per sample. In my opinion single sensor cameras need 4K to deliver "perfect" 2K. This is because of the CFA pattern and the demosaicing. There are missing 66 % of information per pixel which results in more or less visible rendering artifacts. The D16 is a very good start for that kind of camera. The Ikonoskop people where the real pioneers with their fantastic Acam dII. And people who don´t like what they see from CCD cameras have lots of other cameras tho choose from. Its good that there are alternatives to the big ones, i always hoped that this could happen on the operating system area, like the times where Atari and Commodore exists.

The problem with that technically accurate statement is that a 4K high FPS camera with the new class of video engines should be able to emulate the D-Bolex "look" upon the demand of the owner. And this dove-tails into the audio world.
.
In the olden days, tube powered amps like the famous Marshall Stacks were used as the public address (PA) system. Since the early 70's, the guitar tube amps have only served as the source of the signal - i.e., they are miked - while the PA switched to the solid state amplification and the multiple woofer/tweeter arrangement. Within the last decade, the PA concept switched again to the suspended line array speakers while the amplification was upgraded to Class D. Finally, the tube sound of any amp can be faked via new modeling amps and digital software programs.
.
In home audio, the tube sound remained relatively popular among the audiophiles and its renaissance is largely due to the availability of the cheap ex-Soviet-Russian and Chinese tubes and relatively inexpensive Chinese amps but that's a minuscule portion of the total audio market.
.
And speaking of USSR - Gene, Room8 is the best short I have ever seen. Of course, it was conceived by an Oscar winning screenwriter, which explains a whole lot.

many big bands still use tube amplifiers for live and studio recording.
i think the argument that digital replaces analog is not valid, there will always be those who prefer the aesthetics of analog. vinyl sales are up the past 5 years, and cd sales are diminishing.
in movies, it is now possible to shoot 35mm film cheaper than 4k digital. a used Arriflex 535B can be bought for less than $8000 while renting an FS65 cinealta will cost you $2k/day. it costs 8 cents/foot to process film. take into consideration the enormous disk space digital requires to record 4k RAW, and to store, digital doesn't have the democratization they claim

As I said, tube amps are not used as the PA unless in smaller venues (they can still be extremely loud but heavy and prone to breakdowns).
.
IMO, your main point that digital has not resulted in the democratization of film making is incorrect. Obviously, a high budget production, including TV, can shoot on either but you can't compare the cost and quality factor of someone shooting Raw with BMCC onto media cards and then editing it on the laptop with the attached software to a reasonable film production. And, clearly, Super8 is no 4K, among other apples and oranges in the digital camera salad.
.
PS. Beside the pixel count and the video processing, the next step will probably take the competition toward the larger sensor sizes (something like a 645, perhaps) but that may be the part of the 8K wars a decade from now.

a BMCC is nowhere near the quality of a 35mm print off an arriflex 535B. if you think you can just dump data from a bmcc into a laptop and FCP, color grade it and get a theater quality film, you are in for a surprise.

these numbers are marketing by manufacturers who are waving carrot sticks. an iphone shoots 1080p, is it as good as an alexa at 1080p. no. is the bmcc at 4k as good as a $65k sony cinealta f65 at 4k? no. the overall image of the bmcc though good for television work, documentaries, indie films and home video is not even close to the level of hi end digital or 35mm projected on a 100 foot screen, and my point was that production of a 35mm from film costs to processing is becoming attractive vs. hi-end digital (alexa, red, cinealta, etc). Digital SSD/storage costs are not going lower, and then you add costs of film grading to make it look filmic, colorists, etc. all this money spent on digital to get a final digital print that looks filmic seems counterintuitive when the film/digital cost arbitrage is basically non-existent now

This doesn't say anything about the camera or the quality of the footage... I'm just a little tired of seeing the same subject over and over from these guys. Just shoot someone/something else. Anyone or anything else.

Agreed on this one! I'm tired of seeing this same girl, and I just would like to see something outside with vibrant greens and blues. The whole video was just kind of dark, dreary, and gray. Show me some color.

In the Zacuto Shootout last year, Haskell Wexler, arguably one of the world's greatest DP's said this (and I'm paraphrasing): "In Hollywood, the studio never asks you what camera you use. Why? Because THEY DON'T CARE. They just want it done. These days, everything is good. So go out and shoot your movie."

I shoot my films on an a used eBay'd $600.00 GH2 with 30-year-old cheap eBay'd manual glass, and won film festivals with it, and nobody every laughs when they ask me what I shoot on. They just smile and say, "cool!" (I will be adding RAW very soon, though- just weighing my options for the moment, with all these new toys...)

I hope the Digital Bolex folks do well, I think the BMCC rocks, DSLRS are a game-changer, SONY, Panasonic, RED, Arri, you name it. We're all kids in a candy store. Good times, my friends.

And besides, what really makes a movie look like a movie ain't about camera's or lenses-it's about LIGHTING.

Thank you. I sometimes wonder whether most of the posters here actually make any films or just like to discuss the equipment. It's the same in the audio world i come from; most just argue endlessly about some perfect gear that will change everything and make nothing. I expect it's the same here.

I'm on a few mailing lists with actual film makers and the difference is stunning. You get opinions based on experience and none of this stupid arrogance - you actually learn something. I hope the new site has a voting system and if it helps bury the mindless chatter this place has hope otherwise there are other places to go.

Interestingly, one of those was supposedly shot at 24fps with sound using this camera over a year and a half ago (the other is time lapse, so not really relevant). It also isn't HD, although they claim that's because of vimeo. I wonder what's changed so dramatically? Their original kickstarter said they'd ship the first round 4 months after it funded because it was already ready to be manufactured (3d models made, circuitry working well enough to shoot a film). Now we're a year past that and once again seeing "first" footage.

I honestly don't know what's happened. I get that any camera like this is a huge undertaking (especially without a very large team behind you), and that they added some functionality. But I'm curious about the details of why this ready-to-manufacture product hasn't yet been manufactured. Are there any blog posts on their site about this?

Hey Colin. Here's the biggie. http://www.digitalbolex.com/100-changes/. 100 changes were made at the behest of our Kickstarter backers, which took a long time to implement, but ultimately made the camera a much better product. We blog on a fairly regular basis, so most of your questions will be answered there, and we have many, many blog posts about our progress.

We shot ONE SMALL STEP on a front end prototype--that is a sensor tied to the computer, essentially. No circuitry working; we were just showing what the sensor was capable of by itself. It was a prototype, not a finished camera, and we were pretty clear about that. The KS allowed us to get funding to actually make the thing that had been designed in the computer and modeled as CNCs. And what was designed changed drastically. On top of that, the firmware to run the camera is the most difficult part of the process, not circuitry, and that's much trickier when it comes to dealing with a complex analog CCD chip.

Thanks for the link, although being an extremely pedantic kinda guy I'd quibble that your list is actually only 26 things, one of which is a measuring tape post. (see what I mean about pedantic? Geez.)

To the larger point, I'm sympathetic (even though your camera isn't for me). My dad was an engineer who developed some sophisticated electrical equipment for a niche market, and went through a similar development cycle, with similar criticisms. Thankfully there was no internet then, just a phone ringing all day with people asking where it was.

Like a lot of people, I'm very skeptical about this. But I do hope you succeed - more cameras is always a better thing, especially more cameras with a fundamentally different sensor and unique approach.

Well...these guys are definitely not product marketing experts. They should probably stop whilst they are still ahead and hire someone else to showcase the camera. From what I'm seeing, I'm becoming less and less interested not because of the footage but because of the behind the scenes footage. I'll wait until this thing has been out and used for about six months before I start to care about it again.

The music is a rip-off. It is very common in Japan to rip each other off. Anyway these are great shots but really they are great because of the cinematography and a slider. Has nothing to do with what they are shot on or what codec is used or anything else. If I shot this on my HFG10, you would be amazed. It has everything to do with story and the unfamiliarity of of Japan and Geisha in general. I live in Japan and see this everyday. It's lost on me and all I see (or hear) is a rip off of a great OST from My Neighbour Totoro. The power is in the story and the foreignness, not in the camera.

There's plenty of new GX7 footage online. In good hands, IQ looks superb and it's not even a pro tier camera.
.
@Gene - Panasonic, much like Sony, Samsung and, to some extent, JVC - wants to have a full line of 4K products, including TV's, cameras and camcorders. That line may - and should - also include some sort of a streaming/DVR 4K box. Thus, a big problem for them is not just engineering but timing. The camcorders and the TV's can be introduced at the CES. The rest may have to be spread around the Photokina, the NAB, the IBC and so forth. Canon and Nikon, who are not in the TV biz, have a slightly different schedule. Canon, of course, has a full line of camcorders and it'd be interesting to see if Nikon follows them into that corner. After all, all Nikon needs is a differently shaped box.

The raw debate is garbage, raw is raw, you can tweak it to whatever you want. When working with raw you just adjust to what needs to happen. That is why raw exists, to have flexibility to match later. The only people interested in raw RIGHT NOW or VFX folks. That's it. Go ahead and process raw on your Apple Clown Macs. And wait, and wait and wait for it to be done to realize oops, you messed up. And then wait some more.

Raw isn't mainstream for a reason. You clowns will find out soon enough. It will take about six maybe seven more years for technology to catch up to a consumer grade raw work flow, and that is being so generous I can't be even be more generous to tech now. Ha ha go for it. I love to see read the debate between rookie clowns who think they know what they are talking about. Shit it's my new entertainment. Debate away . . .

This is a valid point, though nowhere did Digital Bolex mention consumers as target audience. There are intense arguments at their web site regarding the raw workflow. Imho, the raw workflow will be manegeable, with one exception (for now). Hard disks have now reached a price level that allows storing CinemaDNG (about 300 GB/hour at 2K), and with Apple pushing into OpenGL (see the coming MacPro) much harder than ever, I think that processing will also work, due to performance improvements in the software towards OpenCL. Black Magic already announced that for Resolve. Actually, the beta of the compagnion software to the D16 seems capable of doing a simpler debayer in real time. One point that also influences this is that e.g. H.264 is much more complicated to decode.

The exception is long term archiving of the raw footage. The only solution right now are very expensive LTO tapes.

Colors in that are very nice. It doesn't have the 30 minute limit. It will only do 1080p. Panasonic does have a 4K sensor now. Waiting to see what cameras they'll use it in. I didn't see a cost on the sensor. So I don't know if they'll put it in the next GH. But going by what the Panasonic rep in this video said they likely will:

That looks like an ad. Probably is one ;-): In contrast, no marketing has started for the D16. The footage is test footage to play with, in order to find issues, try out gradings, test workflows. In software, it would be beta stage. If you don't understand the radically different approach of Digital Bolex regarding the development of the D16 as compared to the giants' approch, I suggest that you visit their website and read through the forums, were a lot of pople discuss topics related to the development of the camera, and its accessories.

I think people believe that Bolex is inventing a product for 2012, whereas they won't be able to fully introduce it in quantity until 2014. At which point, its chief competitors will have far more advanced models on the market at the similar price point.
.
PS. That Panasonic 4K sensor is probably destined for their camcorder line (2/3" in size). I assume it will then replace their 3CCD models. If so, it'd be a tad ironic for the CCD laden D-Bolex.

GH3 has a Micro Four Third sensor (21.6 mm diagonal, 225 sq mm total area) and the sensor mentioned in the article is 2/3" (11 mm diagonal, 58.1 sq mm area), a size that is generally used only in camcorders (in triplicate with an RGB prism) and smart phones. I doubt it'll be deemed sufficient for GH3. I suspect they'll have a different 4K sensor for a future GH camera with the M43 format. Also, as the 8K looms on the horizon, larger sensors like Super35 (31 mm diagonal, 464 sq mm area) that Arri Alexa uses may be in the offing as well.
.
FWIW, Panasonic does offer a full line of camcorders, from the high end/pro $60K 3 CCD units down to the $4K prosumer ones. These 2/3" 4K sensors should be able to fit in all of them.

While I understand and respect what these guys are doing by keeping it simple, I also think they should be focused on making their camera look as good as possible right now by demonstrating the maximum of its capabilities. I am currently in the market for a new camera, and those pasty images give me absolutely no desire to consider the DB as a viable option.

Elle said above that one of the reasons that they haven't gotten a well known DP to shoot a promo for them is budget. SURELY there would be some DP out there willing to do this for free simply to give their public profile a boost.

Jesus christ, look at all these pansies who got their panties in a bunch. Something tells me that most of the people on here making these crazy ludicrous comments don't work professionally. Take it easy, it's a camera, it might work well for some people, and it might not do the job for others. Nobody is trying to say this is the best camera in the world, these guys from Bolex had a passion to create something, they made it, they want to sale it, if you like it, buy it, if you don't then skip it. What's all the fuss?

I think some commenters, I'm not saying all, but some, are apprehensive for Bolex Digital because of the cost. There's other cameras that cost less that makes video that looks just as good, maybe a little better. And in just weeks BlackMagic will be coming out with a 4K camera for $4000.00. The sentimental look of the Bolex won't be enough to make it sell big. Other cameras that cost less could sell in bigger quantities. There will be a market for the sentimental look of the camera. But it may be small. (I like how it looks myself) Some are just feeling that though it is a nice camera with a good picture, and great audio, 24 bit, 96 khz---it has XLR's too, the lower priced competition may keep the camera from taking off.

I think a lot of people are missing the big picture here, and this project is actually quite old in technology terms. (I remember first reading about this several years ago back before their partnership with Bolex proper). I remember when they were working on getting components to fit into a Bolex body and had their camera's bits and pieces in something that looked like a Radio Shack project box.

What these guys were doing, at the time...was quite revolutionary. A group of people who were trying to recapture the magic of Bolex in a home-built digital fashion, back when it was next to impossible for the common person to get into quality film making without selling a kidney to buy a RED system.

Fast forward to today, technology has outpaced them, but you have to admire their drive to create something, which at the time was not only revolutionary (but somewhat limited), and to see the project through, even though it's all but irrelevant now, and will probably only enjoy a niche market.

It's just like firearms, everyone has their favorite, everyone has their loves. Or motorcycles, or cars, Ford vs. Chevy, BMW vs. Mercs...etc. etc. etc.

It's an interesting and cool cinematographical oddity, that if they were able to get their product to market in a timely manner, a lot of people wouldn't be shopping for DSLR rigs today. That being said, it's still kinda cool.

Get your FREE copy of the eBook called "astonishingly detailed and useful" by Filmmaker Magazine!
It's 100+ pages on what you need to know to make beautiful, inexpensive movies using a DSLR. Subscribe to receive the free PDF!